Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go (verb)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. CDC (talk) 21:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go (verb)[edit]

Dicdef + etymology = transwiki. Dicdef + already in Wiktionary = delete. Radiant_* 11:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

  • Completely disagree. The complexity of this verb is such that its etymology an important phenomenon of historical linguistics. This article complements and supports others which together give a full overview of the history not just of individual words (etymology) but of the whole verbal system in the Germanic languages. See the article Germanic verb, which is a hub linking this group together. This article does need some work - a recent comment on the talk page complains about its style, and I feel it should be expanded to cover the closely related forms in other Germanic languages (German is mentioned). But it is certainly important. --Doric Loon 11:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree that it's important. I just feel it's more appropriate in a dictionary. Radiant_* 11:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be far more information here than you would get in a dictionary and it doesn't seem like it's the kind of information that would get put in a dictionary. --JiFish 12:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep; this has already shown its potential to be encyclopedic. Brighterorange 13:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This contains extended discussion in complete sentences. It goes well beyond the sort of information you'd find in a dictionary. -- Smerdis of Tlön 14:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • extended discussion in complete sentences — If your argument is based upon the thinking that dictionaries are required to speak in telegraphese and so cannot contain articles with complete sentences, then it is ill-founded, since you are thinking of paper dictionaries. Not all dictionaries are paper. Wiktionary is not paper, for one. Uncle G 14:59, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
      • FWIW, I oppose "dictionary definition" as grounds for deletion as a matter of course; on its own, all this does is raise needless controversy about valid stubs that begin at the beginning. Since that beginning, the concept has metastasized to articles that are "about a word." This is not a valid reason for deletion; ultimately every article in a written language is "about a word." The original "dictionary definition" ground was predicated on the notion that an article had no chance to ever become anything more than a list of synonyms; in which "dicdef" would be better stated as "unencyclopedic," and there are a host of math articles that ought to be deleted then, since they too contain naught but definition and tautology, and are far less intelligible than this. The instant article obviously goes far beyond that. Smerdis of Tlön 19:26, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Excellent article. Revolución 19:19, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Brilliant article. Why was this considered to delete? Internodeuser 19:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki and merge with existing Wiktionary article. This is a brilliant article but better suited to a dictionary than an encyclopedia. Capitalistroadster 20:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is a wonderful article. --Hoovernj 21:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please becase it really is a wonderful article so why erase it Yuckfoo 22:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep we shouldn't keep every verb in wikipedia, but I think one of the three most important verbs qualifies... --Arcadian 00:51, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up (I've already added the {{cleanup}} tag and I'll work on it when I get the chance). It goes into much more detail about the etymology than would be feasible or desirable at Wiktionary, and there are a lot of pages here that link to it. --Angr/탉 07:24, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good article. JamesBurns 11:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- BD2412 talk 01:47, 2005 May 30 (UTC)
  • Keep -Lethe | Talk 09:31, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Highly informative and beyond anything to be found in a normal dictionary William Avery 21:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Go_(verb)&oldid=1142650816"